Slashdot Mirror
Senate Committee Votes to Authorize Warrentless Wiretapping
LividBlivet writes, "The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that not only authorizes, but extends, US warrentless wiretapping. No accountability. No oversight. No definition of 'terrorist.' No record of who voted for what. Great way to devolve a democratic republic into a fascist theocracy. Me worried? Yea." Here is the text of SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act (PDF). Confusingly, the committee also voted out two other bills, one of which "all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal," according to Wired.
I don't know who is more dangerous, the "Islamofascists" who are behind terrorism or the Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. The thing that gets me is that I cannot see an endgame to the Neocon strategy as it is based on a continued fear and principals of isolationism. What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?
Your first chance, should you disagree with these strategies (rights erosion, elimination of civil liberties, etc...etc...etc...) is to exercise your Constitutionally given rights (for now) and vote this November for a change. Elect those individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at home and abroad. Make these people responsible for what they say and do by linking their jobs to their implemented law and take back your country.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Going to Thomas - where the REAL text of the bill is located - it clearly requires FISC and Congressional oversight. It does allow for emergency authorization of a wiretap, but not without later Congressional oversight. So, without meeting the narrow definition of an "emergency", these wiretaps have to be authorized by FISC and then go to Congressional oversight. How is that considered "no oversight"?
The previous comment is purposely vague and generalized, but all of the facts are completely true.
This is just political tactics. These loosers will tack this brick onto some Democratic feel-good bill, like free Housing for All, or National Health Care, or Puppies are Good.. Then the Dems will be forced to kill their own bill and the GOP will tell the world how the Evil Democratic Party (tm) doesn't like National Health Care or poor people or puppies.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came? I'm not a native english speaker, and this expression makes absolute no sense, except if I'm missing some context-dependent information that is out there. Islamic theocracy (that is, according to the most distorted views on both sides, the ultimate goal of the islamic terrorism) and fascism are so different concepts that "islamofascism" sounds like an oxymoron.
I don't know, I'm guessing here, but it sounds like an attempt to label the "other side" fascist, in order to evoke towards them the anti-fascist feelings that survived after the WWII, and also to avoid to be labeled themselves as fascists.
Anyway, it is a lame expression (meme) and I doubt there is an equivalent for it currently in use in any other country/language.
Stick a fork in the Republic, it's done.
Ave Caesar!
KFG
Consider encouraging Democratic (and Republican - though that's unlikely) senators to filibuster this.
Senator contact list
It looks like filibusteris the only realistic option on this one.
Oh, and vote however you prefer to end this destruction of personal and public liberties in November. I'd HIGHLY suggest Democratic in most cases this election.
Ryan Fenton
No definition of 'terrorist.'
While I realize the author's complaint regarding the law, it should be noted that the definition of terrorist has changed at least a dozen times since the term was coined in the 1790's - scholars who study terrorism for a living still don't have a working definition of what it means to be a terrorist that is widely accepted, and most books I've seen on the matter take about a chapter to come up with a loose working definition but ultimately apply a "you know it when you see it" approach.
Defining a term whose meaning moves a great deal - and has strayed so far from its original meaning - is no easy task, and present USG definitions from State and DoD aren't too satisfying either.
They let Bush have his way for so long, I don't even think they realize how pathetic they've become.
Actually, by declaring 'war on terror' (the pretense for invading Iraq and his mad rush for 'war powers'), GWB has done something that hasn't happened since King Charles I of England started a war with Scotland in 1637 without consulting Parliament. Parliament later didn't give him an army when the Irish rebelled, and in 1649 beheaded Charles.
GWB is trying to take the country in the direction of Caesar-like rule, in that a leader under the pretense of fighting defending the empire/country could act with total impunity and a complete lack of accountability. He's actively fighting the constitution itself, even though he twice swore to defend it. Separation of powers in a standing government isn't just a hallmark of democracy - its a sign of being a civilized society.
Also, its one thing to temporarily alter the separation and balance of powers laid out in the US constitution during a time of war - but in this case war has not been declared, and it also a 'war' with absolutely no end in site. As long as there is one terrorist group "plotting and planning", the undeclared war will continue. This is clearly a grab for permanent power, and he's using the pain of 9/11 to do it.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
As a reminder to those of you who want to believe that the Senate is a rubber stamp for its committees, Senate and House committees are merely supposed to filter out the meaningless and/or ineffective gibberish, not decide whether they should become law or not. By that standard, they did their jobs.
It's the whole "party" crap that's the problem. These people supposedly have important jobs to do but instead of trying to do them to the best of their ability their busy playing the most moronic games you can imagine based around whether the president, or a potential judge or whoever, is a member of their gang or the other gang. It's stupid, it's pathetic and it's dangerous.
The President is tasked in a time of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit, and guess what we are at war. Our enemy has said that they are at war with us.
Oh, I see. So I guess Congress no longer needs to declare war, what with all the bureacratic trivialities of debate and voting; as long as our "enemy" says we're at war, we are. Ah, that should be a real time-saver. I sure hope that's a troll, but I fear you were serious (albeit terribly misguided).
Yes, Congress grants special power to the President in a time of declared war, but only when Congress agrees indeed there is a war. The "war" on terror, the "war" on drugs, and the "war" on child pornography are all marketing campaigns at best, not actual legally-declared wars.
As someone who has been a tourist in your country often in the past, I am worried.
And I haven't travelled to the Paranoid States of America since 2001. Nor do I have any plans to travel there in the forseeable future.
Just keep off my damn lawn.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
Ok, the two geysers in the back said no.
The young hipster who listens to NPR said "Leave me alone you facist, I'm trying to protest a highway here".
The under educated rural American could not be reached for reply. Allthough one of her 7 kids did throw a rock at my car.
The middle class family I spoke with said, and I quote, "what are you talking about, this is America you left wing commie pinko terrorist supporting liberal". Well, at least the Father did, between commercials of Fox and Friends. The mother had no idea who her senator was, and the kids were trying to talk to me about government responsibility and all kinds of neat stuff, but who cares what they think, they were only 11 and 13. Not old enough to have purchasing power, or vote, so they don't exist.
Well that's about your voting population. All 15% of em.
Yea, so your answer is... no.
From the article: "Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill." It sure gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to know that "freedom-loving Americans" are spreading their open and accountable flavour of democracy arould the world - not!
According to the US Constition's 4th Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Now is the time to start helping the ACLU and EFF to bring this unconstitutional fascism before a federal court ASAP!
Zen tips: Pay attention. Don't take it personally. Believe nothing.
>I'm curious as to how the Fourth Ammendment protects you from having your international phone conversation tapped by agents from the other country you are talking to.
Ask yourself, if the framers had had telephones, would they have included them in the forth amendment or not? My thinking is that they absolutely would have, as the British would have been tapping them like crazy to get those 'Colonial Terrorists'.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Son't be silly. Once the Democrats win, they will find some other justification for keeping this act intact. No politician of any party would willingly relinquish power handed to them, no matter how bitterly they protested seeing that power handed to the OTHER guy.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
"I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back. "
You really aren't paying attention to what the issue is, are you?
You've fallen hook line and sinker for the Neocon talking points.
This isn't about the government's ability to get a wire tap and listen to those conversations. No one is trying to block that.
This is about the fact that the constitution requires the government to get a damn warrant.
During the Clinton administration, laws were passed allowing them to get those warrants after the fact, up to 72 hours after placing them!
Tell me, how is requiring the government to be accountable for it's actions going to give the terrorists a leg up?
How the HELL is requiring the government to follow the constitution, to actually leave a damn paper trail of who they're spying on, going to help terrorist?
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Only while people like you continue sitting on your arse doing nothing but insisting that the status quo is the best that can be expected. Politics is a participation sport.
You're making the assumption that it matters which of the two main parties you vote for, the policies remain the same. The biggest difference seems to be the way they want to pay for things, either taxation or inflation.
Deleted
My book, podcast
What part of Needing a Warrant do you NOT understand? Why is the need for a warrant something you're so eager to piss away? DO you understand that warrantless searches were one of the things the Revolutionaries were pissed off about when they started the Revolution in the first place??? Do you know ANY of the history behind WHY we require warrants?
As for the whole "It has to be renewed every year" nonsense, all it takes is one rider in one bill to remove that Sunset clause. We saw that happen with The Patriot Act.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
Encrypted!
Seriously. The only thing that bugs me is I cannot get a good, wireless, portable encryption platform. My GSM cell phone might as well be an open book. Other than that, my SIP communication, and my GPG e-mail should be moderately difficult for the "powers that be" to crack.
If all communication was encrypted, even if that encryption is breakble, the computational needs of large scale data mining would be impossible. If you need an NSA super computer to crack every e-mail, and it takes 1 hour of processor time per e-mail, you can't very well analyze one billion e-mails a day.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Excluding the currently proposed revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA already provides for the oversight of Wiretapping via the FISA Courts and Congress.
e _Surveillance_Act#FISA_court): "Proceedings before the FISA court are ex parte and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the Department of Justice. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected." This means that unless the FISA Court chooses to publicly release its findings, its decisions cannot be challenged by any other court (including SCOTUS) save the FISA appeals court, which only met once in US history, in 2002.
Consider the following Facts:
1) The FISA Court has the authority to hear and issue decicions in a completely secret manner, so that if the court chooses, neither the case or its decision will be made public. The FISA court has, on very rare (and mostly recent occasions) occasions chosen to state its decisions publicly, but this is quite unusual.
2) From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligenc
3) FISA already has provisions which allow for the President to temporarily bypass the 11 member court, in cases that he deems of sufficient need, as long as the case is brought before it soon after. The President (via U.S. AG Alberto Gonzales) has acknowledged this provision but essentially said that it is too much trouble to have to go back to the FISA court every time he wants to start a new round of spying programs or make changes to them.
Why then, is it neccessary to make any more changes to FISA?
I did read the SB2453: like most bills it is full of very specific verbage and definitions. From what I could digest of it it has a lot of room for a President to wiggle through (IANAL, but the ACLU which has plenty of them and found it "stunning"). I also read the wired article. SB2453 makes me nervous precisely for the reasons you cite, listed below:
"1) It's for people communicating the terrorists"
Duh. And Who has the legal authority to define what terrorist is? While congress could define such security terms narrowly they usually do not, deferring to President, the DOJ or the Department of State. The DOJ and DOS heads are nominated by, guess who? the President, and rubber stamped by Congress. Judging by how many people in the US are subjeced to this domestic spying program, the current President has shown he thinks a lot of US citizens could be terrorists. That bothers me, but even more is the idea that FISA courts can be ignored completely here.
"2) It's being overseen by a court."
See my above comments.
"3) it's ALSO being overseen by Congress."
As I stated in the beginning, FISA is already under the jurisdiction of Congress but as a whole it has demontrated remarkably little oversight to the public with respect to the current domestic surveillance. Their "solution" to the President's illgal wiretapping of citizens has been to propose this bill, which purports to make it legal. So much for the concept that no one is above the law. I doubt the courts will allow it to stand. That is, if they even get the opportunity to review it; under the proposed bill normal citizens will no longer have the right to do challenge it, only the FISA court will, and it rarely lets us know what's going on.
I think our best hope is for SCOTUS to declare the current program unconstitutional, but because Judge Taylor was so left wing in her outspoken criticism of the program, I think the strength of her decision has been weakened by it; IMO there was plenty unconsitutional about the program without having to spout so much left leaning platitudes.
To sum it up: your argument is a Red Herring.
Republicans are always so good at talking about how Government is intrusive and bad, but are almost always the first in line to vote our civil liberties away, one bill at a time. Then enough meek Democrats follow along for fear of being labled "soft on terrorism." The whole thing disgusts me.
I know who I'll be voting for in November.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
I just listened to an interview with someone on NPR, a British citizen who spent 3 years at gitmo with no trial, who was tortured, and denied contact with the outside world. Why would I be paranoid about a government that would do that? Except that it's MY government, not some two-bit third-world tinpot dictator's government.
My book, podcast
Have you considered that the harassment people who believe Bush is the better choice are subjected to by people like you and lots of others on Slashdot can make them reluctant to state who they are voting for when asked?
Much more likely that they would be too cowardly and deceitfiul to admit to their hatred and contempt for freedom and their eager support of torture and murder as cowardice, blind ignorant hatred and a lust for murder are the defining characteristics of Republicans. Just look at the world today and realise that those sick animals voted for it twice.
No sanity or morality could be involved in that choice.
Oh, no, it's really their fear of harassment. What an idiotic statement.
Presumably, somewhere in the black core of their souls, Republican voters are ashamed of their purely evil, hate mongering, murderous, theiving attitudes and therefore are embarassed to admit that they despise American values, freedom and the like.
The simple fact is that they do support torture, murder, and the destruction of the great experiment. If they didn't wholeheartedly support those things over any sort of decency then we would not be in the situation that we are in.
It's no surprise that such a vile, amoral cowardly lot as them would be too afraid to admit even to themselves what deeply and wholely evil scum they have proven themselves to be at every opportunity.
It's basic simple common sense. No sane, informed person believes or has ever believed that Bush was a better choice than any of the alternatives. It's not possible to reach that conclusion as there is nothing to support it but a trail of lies and murder.
What part of "among these" do you not understand? And more to the point, what part of
(AKA the 9th Amendment) do you not understand?!!"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Secondly, if the democrats actually defended civil liberties, then I would start considering the lesser of two evils. But they are just as bad as the republicans when it comes to throwing out our freedoms to appear tough on crime or terrorism. Furthermore the progressives have gotten as bad as the religious right when it comes to forcing everyone to live the way they want them to. The only civil rights issue that the democrats still defend are equal rights for gays, and other minorites. While I give them credit for this, it doesn't matter much if you are systematically eliminating everyone's rights.
As an aside, you cannot blame liberals voting for third parties for the result of the last presidential election or for democrats poor showing in congress. That is due to more people voting republican, not third party.
I vote for the candidate I think is best in almost every election. The only time I vote for the lesser of two evils is when all the following are true:
The last presidential election was the very few times that has happened in many years.
If the only "realistic option" is to vote for a major party, then we might as well admit that there is no solution to the problems that are facing the country today, because they are the ones who created them and they show no signs of changing track. I don't think that voting third party is a waste, but even if it is, I would rather waste my vote than be complicit in the destruction of our country.
We should never have helped Saddam come to power in the first place, never voted in a President who was his business partner, paid Saddam to invade Iran, said President should never have turned a blind eye when his business partner decided to invade Kuwait, and then changed his mind when the U.N. wouldn't STFU about it, pretending he was not business partner and friend of Saddam for 2 decades.
What should we do now? Just a minute...
We should never have invaded Iraq, removing the keystone preventing the country from sliding into a civil war based on long established rivalries between Islamic factions. We SHOULD have continued to focus on Afghanistan, and evaluating our mid-east policies.
What should we do NOW? We should impeach GWB, vote out nearly all the incumbents, and force our government to once again operate for and by the people. And then, and only then, can we make any informed decisions about the problems we are facing today. Because as it currently stands, most of our information about our supposed enemies is coming from known liars who act solely in their own interest.
Yeah, I admit it, it's a fucking pipe dream. Pretty much, we're fucked.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Eventually I'm going to either stop responding to these, or just write up and keep a standard response I can post. It saddens me to see Europeans with such strong opinions about the US and so little understanding of it. So I'll do a brief recap:
/. does, especially the comments).
1) If you are forming your opinions of the US based off of what you read on Slashdot, please stop. Slashdot is a decent source of Linux tech news but, in case you haven't noticed, rather alarmist and given to poor reporting. If you want a real picture of what's going on you need to get your news from multiple sources and try to avoid sites that have open bias (which
2) Please take some time to learn about the legal system in the US. Your statement of "but the way he's amending the Constitution" shows that you don't have a very good understanding. Bush hasn't amended the constitution. The last time it was amended was 1992, the 27th amendment which states "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened." I think you are confusing the questions over the constitutionality of some of the laws that have been passed with actual constitutional changes. Also, the president doesn't amend the constitution, congress and then the states do.
3) Critically examine your own country and others you consider free to see what kind of big brother stuff goes on there. There's actually more of it than you probably think, some of it may even seem quite normal and sensible to you. None of that means you are anywhere near a dictatorship, but it's easy to lose sight of the fact that all countries grapple with freedom vs security issues. As a common example many European nations ban individual ownership of guns. Now you probably find this quite sensible, as guns can be used for criminal acts. However ask yourself: Doesn't it say something when a government trusts only it's agents with weapons, and it's citizens? The police and such are just people too, what makes them so special, other than being an arm of the government, that it's ok for them to have arms and not the public? I'm not looking for an answer here, I'm not advocating gun laws one way or another, just pointing out something that is often considered very normal and acceptable in terms of restricting liberty to increase security. They take away your right to have guns in order that less people might die from them. Perfectly reasonable, but slightly big brotherish none the less.
So look, I'm not going to say there aren't some disturbing trends going on in the US right now and I sincerely hope the 2006 and 2008 elections bring a real shakeup, but you need to get some perspective. If you read places like Slashdot that are all doom and gloom, sure it may seem like things are horrible. However that's because that's what they like to report. They report the bad news, they do a poor job of reporting, and they tend to be alarmist and exemplify it.
All I'd ask is that if you want to have any significant kinds of opinions on the US, that you take the time to research it and make sure they are informed opinions. "The sky is falling," type stuff isn't very useful. I personally have no opinion on the conditions in Holland. Why? Well I haven't researched them. I know a tiny bit from here and there, but not enough to form any kind of educated stance, so I haven't.
And where does that mention that he can violate the other parts of the constitution in carrying out those duties? Even if only one half of the communication is from a US citizen, the president is still required to follow the constitution when spying on that person.
Not to mention that we are not at war, so the president has no wartime powers.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
All the voters have to do is rank the candidates - 1,2,3,etc. That's all - anyone too stupid to tell you who they like best, 2nd best, etc. shouldn't be voting. An individual cannot create cycles with ranks, though you can have "tie" preferences.
All the matrix stuff is done by a computer. It can be verified by hand if needed (and I agree that this is an important consideration!), but it is a time-intensive process. (Instead of varying with V, it goes by V*C*C.) If you mention "matrix" when introducing Condorcet to the electorate, you've lost. But you really don't need to. It is much simpler, and still conceptually correct, to say that you use the rankings to simulate a series of head-to-head matchups, and the correct winner must win them all - after all, a real winner ought to be able to beat everyone else, right?
If IRV isn't a good system mathematically, then it is not a good system practically! It is arguably not better than plurality, because at least with plurality, you know who the "lesser of two evils" is for tactical voting - with IRV you don't, because it becomes almost impossible to correctly guess how the runoffs getting to the final round will go.
Constitutionally Correct
The American Revolution was not the first revolution in history, nor was it the last. The people of various nations have revolted against tyranical government many times. I expect there will eventually be another revolution in the United States. The "Republican" party that presently holds power in the USA seems to want that to happen sooner rather than later.
We should also have learned another lesson from history. A tyranical government cannot successfully control the entire population. If an person becomes mad enough, he or she may do some act of violence against the government. If a sufficient number of people do so, the government cannot stand. That's what revolutions are made of -- just a number of people who decide that they can no longer tolerate the tyrannical government.
The beauty of democratic elections is that a goverment can be thrown out of power without bloodshed. As long as the elections are honest and fair, and each government yeilds power to the next elected government, then a bloody revolution is not necessary.
But, if the election is not honest and fair, then a bloody revolution becomes necessary.
This, more than anything else, is what worries me about our paperless "voting" systems. I believe that our recent elections have not been honest or fair. There is no prospect that the people in power will voluntarily make the elections honest and fair, because they would lose power by doing so. If a large number of people realize that their votes are not really being counted, they may actually start the next revolution.
The only way to avoid bloody revolution is to make the election process completely transparant, so everyone can watch the counting, and everyone can see that the process really is honest and fair.
Good job being an unthinking drone
Have you ever studied the life of Mohammad? Have you ever studied the butchery, slavery, rape that he did and condoned? Perhaps "unthinking drone" applies more to those who are ignorant of history.
In case it matters, I voted against W both times. I've never bought into "the enemy of my enemy" concept. The Islamofacists may be redundant, but it is appropriate nomenclature.
I disagree. If there were a viable 3rd party candidate out there that was moderate, I think they'd seriously threaten both sides, and force the Dems to come back from SOOO far to the left, and the Reps. from SOOOOOOOOO far to the right.
I think if a moderate could get the money and TV time and on the ballots, they could clean the clocks of the 2 majors...or at the very least, scare the shit outta them enough to get them back from the fringes....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........